0tir  Sniicbtetiness,  n3  (2TI)rxstians,  to  our  fellow-men. 


A SERMON 


PREACHED  AT  THE 


SITXY-SIXTH  ANNUAL  MEETING 


OF  THE 


AMERICAN  BOARD  OF  COMMISSIONERS 
FOR  FOREIGN  MISSIONS. 


CHICAGO,  OCTOBER  5,  1875. 


J.  W.  ANDREWS,  D.  D. 

PRESIDENT  OF  MARIETTA  COLLEGE. 


CAMBRIDGE: 

printed  at  tfje  ftitocr^itJc 

1875- 


SERMON. 


“ I AM  DEBTOR  BOTH  TO  THE  GREEKS  AND  TO  THE  BARBARIANS;  BOTH  TO  THE 
WISE  AND  TO  THE  UNWISE.”  Romans  i.  14. 

The  American  Board  has  for  its  object  the  conversion  of 
men  ; it  is  thus  a religious  organization.  But  it  has  to  do  with 
business.  It  must  send  out  and  sustain  missionaries  ; and  for 
this  end  it  collects  and  disburses  large  sums  ; it  makes  drafts, 
and  purchases  bills  of  exchange.  Its  paper  is  known  in  the 
principal  banking-houses  of  the  world,  and  its  credit  has  ever 
been  undoubted.  To  carry  on  its  religious  work  it  employs 
business  machinery.  When  it  makes  drafts,  it  provides  the 
means  of  meeting  them.  That  its  officers  and  members  are 
men  of  prayer,  that  its  Prudential  Committee,  its  Secretaries, 
its  Treasurer,  are  all  as  earnest  for  the  success  of  the  missionary 
work  as  the  missionaries  themselves,  does  not  prevent  their  con- 
ducting the  whole  secular  machinery  of  the  organization  so  as 
to  command  the  approval  of  all  intelligent  business  men.  The 
same  zeal  for  the  cause  is  expressed  by  the  constituents  of  the 
Board.  The  mission  work  is  very  dear  to  them.  They  talk  of 
it,  they  pray  for  it.  But  these  constituents  have  a secular  as 
well  as  a religious  relation  to  the  Board.  It  is  to  them  the 
Board  looks  for  its  revenue.  If  that  revenue  fails,  to  that  extent 
the  missionary  work  fails.  It  is  the  secular  part  of  our  relation 
to  the  causes  of  Christian  benevolence  that  I propose  to  con- 
sider ; our  indebtedness , as  Christians , to  our  fellow-men. 

Paul’s  language  is,  — “I  am  debtor  both  to  the  Greeks  and  to 
the  Barbarians  ; both  to  the  wise  and  to  the  unwise.  So  as 
much  as  in  me  is,  I am  ready  to  preach  the  gospel  to  you  that 
are  at  Rome  also.”  The  word  debtor  refers  primarily  to  pecuniary 
indebtedness,  though  Paul  expected  to  discharge  his  obligation 
by  personal  service.  It  was  not  a specific  obligation,  growing 
out  of  his  official  position  as  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  but  a 
debt  upon  him  as  a Christian  man,  to  do  what  good  he  could  to 


4 


SERMON. 


his  fellow-men.  He  could  go  in  person,  and  thus  by  his  own 
labor  pay  his  debt.  We  must  do  our  work  mainly  through  the 
instrumentality  of  others,  and  thus  our  debt  is  to  be  paid  by 
sustaining  those  who  go.  The  general  obligation  to  do  good  to 
others  is  as  binding  on  us  as  on  the  Apostle.  If  he  was  indebted 
to  them  we  are.  I do  not  attempt  to  prove  this  obligation, 
whether  we  call  the  act  of  discharging  it  making  a gift  or  paying 
a debt.  The  general  obligation  is  taken  for  granted.  And  I 
address  myself  to  those  only  who  admit  that  the  duty  of  doing 
good  to  others,  especially  spiritual  good,  is  binding  on  all  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ.  But  instead  of  presenting  this  duty  in  the 
form  of  giving,  as  the  performance  of  an  act  of  charity,  I wish 
to  hold  it  up  in  the  light  of  indebtedness. 

A debt,  in  the  usual  sense,  is  an  obligation  to  be  discharged 
by  the  transfer  of  property ; and  therefore  we  must  look  at  the 
nature  of  property.  The  desire  of  property,  of  ownership,  is  a 
natural  desire.  It  shows  itself  in  the  child  at  an  early  age. 
Civil  society  everywhere  recognizes  the  right  of  property,  and 
hedges  it  about  with  all  possible  safeguards.  The  prosperity  of 
a nation  is  largely  dependent  on  the  security  given  to  property. 
In  order  to  be  industrious  and  frugal,  men  must  feel  secure  in 
the  possession  of  what  their  labor  has  brought  them.  They 
must  not  live  in  continual  fear  of  theft  and  robbery  from  their 
fellow-men,  nor  of  plunder  and  extortion  from  the  government. 
The  sacredness  of  property  is  seen  in  the  estimate  placed  by 
the  people  on  those  men  in  office  who  are,  or  are  thought  to  be, 
corrupt.  No  argument  by  the  politician  is  more  frequent  or 
more  effective  than  the  charge  of  corruption.  And  if  the  charge 
be  well  founded,  it  ought  to  be  effective  ; the  corrupt  ruler, 
however  high  his  station,  or  however  great  his  capacity,  is  unfit 
for  his  place.  The  regard  for  the  tenure  of  property  is  seen, 
too,  in  the  criticisms  made  upon  our  general  government  touch- 
ing the  management  of  a portion  of  our  public  debt.  It  is  said 
that  a government  which  adopts,  in  regard  to  its  own  liabilities, 
a policy  that  would  never  be  tolerated  in  a private  citizen,  is 
doing  that  which  tends  directly  to  the  demoralization  of  the  peo- 
ple. And  it  cannot  be  denied  that  such  criticisms  are  made  by 
some  of  the  best  and  wisest  men  in  the  land. 

Political  economy  is  based  on  the  desire  of  property.  It  as- 
sumes this  desire  to  be  universal.  We  speak  of  the  laws  of 
trade,  which  are  declared  to  be  invariable,  like  the  law  of  grav- 


SERMON 


5 


ity,  or  that  of  electricity.  By  this  is  meant,  however,  not  that 
the  laws  of  trade  are  impersonal,  and  that  there  is  any  force 
exerted  independent  of  human  agency,  but  that  from  our  knowl- 
edge of  the  human  constitution  we  may  predict  how  men  in 
general  will  act  in  buying  and  selling.  The  laws  of  trade  are 
nothing  but  a summary  of  the  methods  which  men  adopt  in 
their  efforts  to  promote  their  pecuniary  interests.  Other  things 
being  equal  — a consideration  never  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  all 
that  pertains  to  property  — a man  will  always  buy  where  his 
money  will  procure  the  most,  and  sell  his  commodities  or  his 
labor  to  those  who  will  make  the  best  return.  Nor  is  this 
selfishness,  though  writers  on  Political  Economy  sometimes 
thoughtlessly  say  it  is.  It  is  no  more  selfish  than  it  is  to  prefer 
any  superior  physical  good  to  one  inferior ; a good  road  to  a 
poor  one,  for  example.  There  is  nothing  sordid,  of  necessity, 
in  buying  and  selling  and  getting  gain.  But  not  only  does  the 
nature  of  man,  and  the  whole  structure  of  civil  society,  thus 
recognize  the  right  of  property  ; we  have  the  divine  recognition 
of  its  sacredness  in  the  command  “ thou  shalt  not  steal.”  With- 
out property  there  could  be  no  theft.  So,  too,  the  Bible  abounds 
with  exhortations  to  industry.  But  industry  tends  to  the  acqui- 
sition of  property. 

An  apology  seems  almost  necessary  for  presenting  these  ele- 
mentary principles  concerning  ownership,  and  yet  they  are 
often  forgotten  or  overlooked.  Not  a few  appear  to  think  that 
the  wealth  of  the  world,  or  of  a community,  is  of  a given 
amount ; and  hence  that  when  one  man  grows  richer  some  one 
else  must  grow  poorer  ; that  whoever  has  more  than  the  average 
must  have  taken  that  which  was  really  the  portion  of  others. 
This  erroneous  notion  enters  as  a large  element  into  the  oft-ex- 
pressed jealousy  of  the  poor  towards  the  rich,  — a notion  which 
political  demagogues  of  whatever  party  are  so  ready  to  foster. 
Property  may  be  obtained,  indeed,  dishonestly,  and  so  it  may  be 
gained  honestly.  There  is  no  necessary  relation  between  the 
amount  of  a man’s  possessions  and  the  morality  of  his  dealings. 
In  general,  the  man  who  prospers  by  legitimate  methods  bene- 
fits others  as  well  as  himself,  — benefits  them  in  the  very  acqui- 
sition of  his  wealth,  aside  from  the  manner  in  which  he  disposes 
of  it.  Very  often  there  is  a positive  creation  of  wealth,  by  con- 
verting that  which  had  little  or  no  value  into  a valuable  product, 
as  in  mining  and  manufacturing  ; and  of  this  new  increment 


6 


SERMON. 


but  a small  part  remains  with  him  whose  capital  and  energy 
have  called  it  into  being.  In  a country  like  ours,  with  no  facti- 
tious social  distinctions,  and  with  no  laws  of  primogeniture  or 
entail,  we  should  be  especially  cautious  in  giving  utterance  to 
thoughtless  and  unjust  sayings  about  the  rich. 

There  is  no  merit  in  poverty  as  such,  nor  should  any  disgrace 
be  attached  to  it.  There  is  temptation  in  either  extreme,  and 
the  words  of  Agur  are  as  wise  to-day  as  when  he  uttered  them. 
The  teachings  of  Scripture  are  clearly  in  the  direction  of  acqui- 
sition. They  enjoin  those  virtues  which  naturally  result  in  the 
increase  of  property.  They  condemn  those  habits  which  tend 
to  poverty.  It  is  right  to  be  industrious,  sagacious,  frugal.  It 
is  wrong  to  be  idle,  neglectful,  wasteful.  The  man  to  whom 
God  has  given  the  ability  to  make  money,  should  exert  that 
ability,  and  use  his  gains  to  advance  the  well-being  of  his  race. 
No  matter  how  much  legitimate  prosperity  comes  to  him,  pro- 
vided he  feels  his  indebtedness  to  his  fellow-men  as  Paul  did. 
The  error  is  not  in  getting,  but  in  keeping,  or  in  spending  un- 
wisely. 

A like  thoughtlessness  is  sometimes  seen  in  what  is  said 
touching  the  little  accumulations  that  may  be  made  by  clergy- 
men. A man  who  devotes  himself  to  preaching  the  Word,  it  is 
thought  must  have  no  secular  side  ; and  should  he,  perchance, 
in  the  course  of  years,  make  some  little  savings,  he  is  thought 
to  be  mercenary.  Yet  it  is  not  unlikely  that  his  contributions 
to  the  causes  of  Christian  benevolence  have,  in  the  meantime, 
been  larger  in  proportion  to  his  ability  than  those  of  any  of  his 
parishioners.  It  is  not  only  allowable,  it  is  a duty,  that  the  cler- 
gyman, with  only  his  salary  to  depend  upon,  should  lay  up 
something  against  the  day  of  need.  It  is  incumbent  upon  his 
people  to  give  him  such  support  that  he  can  do  this,  and  yet 
live  in  a manner  becoming  his  position.  When  Christians  come 
to  look  upon  themselves  as  debtors  in  regard  to  the  great  causes 
of  Christian  benevolence,  they  will  cease  to  regard  what  they 
pay  their  pastor  as  charity. 

The  right  of  property  being  thus  founded  in  nature,  and  con- 
nected with  all  progress  in  civilization,  being  recognized  and 
protected  by  the  sanctions  of  law  both  human  and  divine,  it  fol- 
lows that  debts  are  to  be  sacredly  regarded.  If  I am  entitled 
to  the  avails  of  my  labor,  whether  of  hand  or  head,  then  lie  to 
whom  I transfer  a part,  or  make  a pledge  of  transfer,  is  entitled 


SERMON. 


7 


to  the  part  thus  transferred,  or  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  pledge 
thus  made.  A great  part  of  the  wealth  of  the  world  is  not  in 
the  actual  possession  of  the  real  owners.  A man’s  list  of  assets 
may  be  largely  made  up  of  claims  against  others  — paper  evi- 
dences of  debt.  It  would  be  of  little  avail  for  society  to  protect 
a man  in  his  right  to  his  farm,  his  house,  his  store,  and  yet  give 
him  no  protection  in  his  claims  against  others.  The  higher  the 
standard  of  commercial  morality  is,  the  more  careful  will  be  the 
legislation  relating  to  the  collection  of  debts.  And  this  is  more 
for  the  advantage  of  the  poor  than  of  the  rich.  All  stay  laws 
to  prevent  such  collections,  in  the  end  work  against  the  very 
parties  whom  they  were  intended  to  benefit.  If  society  protects 
a man  in  his  property,  it  must  protect  him  also  in  his  credits,  as 
in  these  property  largely  consists.  But  a credit  implies  a debt. 
The  credits  of  A.  are  the  debts  of  B.  Every  additional  safe- 
guard thrown  around  property  — credits  — is  an  additional  in- 
junction upon  the  debtor  to  regard  his  debts  as  sacredly  bind- 
ing. And  the  higher  the  tone  of  business  honor  the  more 
promptly  will  debts  be  paid.  A man  of  strict  integrity  who  is 
indebted  to  others,  regards  himself  as  virtually  a trustee  to  the 
extent  of  his  indebtedness.  He  knows  that  a part  of  what  he 
has  in  possession  is  only  nominally  his  ; he  holds  it  in  trust  for 
his  creditors. 

What  has  been  seen  to  be  true  of  debts  in  the  strict  sense  is 
applicable  also  to  other  classes  of  obligations.  A man  must 
provide  for  the  support  of  his  family.  A large  part  of  the  earn- 
ings of  men  go  for  this  purpose.  It  is  to  provide  for  the  sup- 
port of  families  that  most  of  the  small  debts  are  incurred,  — 
men  being  under  the  necessity,  real  or  supposed,  of  anticipating 
their  incomes.  Thus  to  meet  his  obligations  to  his  family,  a 
man  incurs  indebtedness  to  his  neighbors.  I do  not  say  that 
this  is  wise,  or  often  necessary.  When  the  millennium  comes  it 
will  doubtless  be  changed.  If  the  rule  were,  not  to  anticipate 
our  income,  if  no  debts  were  incurred  for  personal  and  family 
expenses,  and  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life  were  paid  for 
when  purchased,  the  world,  and  especially  the  American  world, 
would  wear  an  aspect  of  comfort  and  prosperity  that  has  never 
yet  been  exhibited.  The  addition  which  such  a change  would 
bring  to  the  treasury  of  the  American  Board,  would  gladden  the 
hearts  of  our  secretaries,  and  make  the  missionaries  sing  for 
joy. 


8 


SERMON. 


As  a man  in  debt  is  not  the  absolute  owner  of  what  he  has 
in  possession,  but  holds  a part  for  his  creditors,  so  a man 
must  recognize  the  claims  of  his  family.  His  obligations  to 
them  are  a species  of  debt,  which  he  may  not  disregard.  They 
must  have  food,  and  clothing,  and  education,  and  no  place  will 
be  given  to  a plea  on  his  part  that  his  property  is  his  own  and 
he  can  do  with  it  as  ho  pleases.  We  cannot  allow  him  to  disre- 
gard these  present  claims  on  the  ground,  even,  that  he  is  saving 
his  property  in  order  to  leave  them  a larger  inheritance  by  and 
by. 

Besides  this  indebtedness  to  one’s  family  there  is  that  to  the 
State.  If  there  be  civil  government  there  will  be  expenses,  for 
which  the  people  must  provide.  Because  the  right  of  property 
is  sacred  it  does  not  follow  that  a man  may  refuse  to  pay  his 
taxes.  Enjoying  the  protection  of  society,  he  must  bear  his 
share  of  the  burdens.  If  the  right  of  property  is  sacred,  so  is 
the  claim  of  the  State  upon  every  citizen.  Other  debts  he  in- 
curs voluntarily,  but  taxes  are  imposed  without  consulting  him. 
The  money  may  go  to  support  officials  for  whom  he  never  voted, 
and  for  measures  which  he  does  not  approve  ; but,  nevertheless, 
it  must  be  paid. 

Still  farther,  there  are  obligations  to  the  community . Outside 
of  the  family,  and  outside  of  the  State,  there  are  things  to  be 
done  essential  to  the  public  weal,  which  the  many  are  glad  to 
have  accomplished,  but  which  they  usually  leave  to  a select  few. 
It  is  a principle  which  is  well-nigh  cardinal  in  a republic,  that 
nothing  should  be  done  by  the  government  which  can  be  done 
as  well  by  the  people  in  their  individual  capacity.  In  some 
countries  the  people  are  takfen  care  of  by  the  government  to  an 
extent  that  hardly  comports  with  their  true  manhood  ; we  pre- 
fer that  our  government  should  confine  itself  as  closely  as  pos- 
sible to  its  legitimate  sphere.  Outside  of  its  own  province,  the 
work  which  the  government  attempts  is  generally  done  in  a 
bungling,  always  in  an  expensive  manner. 

These  obligations  to  the  community,  though  not  as  generally 
recognized  as  those  to  the  family  and  to  the  State,  have  still  a 
kind  of  recognition,  as  is  seen  in  the  approbation  given  by  the 
public  to  those  who  respond  to  them.  These  are  regarded  as 
the  true  philanthropists,  the  men  of  public  spirit,  the  benefactors 
of  the  community.  To  them  we  owe  the  endowment  and  sup- 
port of  colleges  and  seminaries,  the  founding  of  public  libraries, 


SERMON. 


9 


and  the  carrying  forward  of  various  kindred  measures  for  the 
public  good.  The  esteem  in  which  these  men  are  held,  and  the 
reflections  cast  upon  those  who,  while  having  the  ability,  with- 
hold their  cooperation,  is  a proof  that  this  class  of  obligations 
is  recognized  as  imposing  a kind  of  debt  upon  those  to  whom 
has  been  given  the  means  of  doing  good. 

In  these  obligations  a gradation  may  be  seen.  Few  men  fail 
to  recognize  the  claims  of  their  families.  A larger  number  pay 
taxes  because  they  are  compelled  to  do  it.  Still  more  do  little 
or  nothing  to  entitle  them  to  be  called  men  of  public  spirit. 
The  farther  removed  the  object  is  from  personal  interest,  the 
smaller  is  the  number  from  whom  comes  the  response.  To 
carry  forward  measures  of  great  public  utility,  through  the  ex- 
ercise of  private  liberality,  requires  men  of  greater  breadth  and 
higher  type.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  also,  that  doing  good  to 
others,  whether  by  personal  service  or  through  the  use  of  prop- 
erty, reacts  upon  the  character,  giving  it  still  greater  breadth 
and  excellence.  The  man  who  lives  for  himself  becomes  nar- 
row. Shutting  the  ear  to  the  claims  of  others,  and  doing  noth- 
ing for  their  well-being,  has  a tendency  to  check  the  growth  ; 
while  he  who  goes  out  of  himself  and  seeks  to  benefit  his  fel- 
low-men, reaches  a higher  stature,  and  becomes  fitted  for  still 
greater  efforts.  “To  him  that  hath  shall  be  given.” 

A few  months  ago,  the  papers  were  filled  with  notices  of  a 
man  of  foreign  birth  who  had  for  many  years  made  our  country 
his  home.  His  days  had  been  given  to  a department  of  physi- 
cal science  having  no  very  close  connection  with  practical  life, 
yet  in  every  village  of  the  land,  the  name  of  Agassiz  had  be- 
come a household  word,  and  multitudes  who  had  never  seen 
him,  mourned  for  him  as  for  a personal  friend.  What  gave  him 
this  place  in  the  hearts  of  the  American  people  ? Other  men 
have  made  as  high  scientific  attainments,  and  have  done  as 
much  to  promote  scientific  progress.  It  was  his  disinterested 
devotion  to  his  work  ; his  recognition  of  the  indebtedness  to 
the  world,  which  God  had  placed  upon  him,  in  giving  him  this 
love  of  science,  and  this  ability  successfully  to  investigate  the 
secrets  of  nature.  When  urged  to  devote  a portion  of  his  time 
to  work  which  would  bring  him  large  pecuniary  profit,  he  replied 
that  he  had  no  time  for  making  money.  In  no  spirit  of  vain- 
glory was  this  said,  and  with  no  purpose  to  speak  slightingly  of 
money,  or  to  reflect  upon  those  who  had  accumulated  it ; for  he 


IO 


SERMON. 


himself  needed  money,  and  often  asked  for  it  in  behalf  of  the 
great  enterprises  with  which  he  was  identified  ; and  under  the 
influence  of  his  enthusiasm,  rich  men  poured  out  their  money 
like  water.  But  he  felt  that  his  personal  debt  to  the  world  could 
not  be  paid  in  that  way ; he  must  do  the  work  which  God  had 
given  him  to  do. 

I have  said  that  not  all  who  acknowledge  the  obligation  to 
their  families  will  admit  their  indebtedness  to  the  public  in  gen- 
eral. To  do  this  will  require  a higher  tone  of  character,  and  a 
truer  perception  of  the  connection  between  the  individual  and 
his  race.  The  same  statement  will  apply,  though  with  more 
truth,  to  the  great  causes  of  Christian  benevolence.  The  sin- 
cere, intelligent  follower  of  Christ  will  see  his  individual  obli- 
gation to  help  forward  those  great  movements  which  have  for 
their  end  the  conversion  of  the  world.  He  will  see  that  as  men 
are  under  a species  of  indebtedness  to  their  families,  to  the  gov- 
ernment under  which  they  live,  and  to  the  general  public,  so 
Christian  men  are  also  under  an  indebtedness  to  the  world  for 
which  the  Saviour  died.  And  as  a man’s  indebtedness  to  his 
children  springs  not  from  any  service  they  have  rendered  him, 
but  from  the  very  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  him,  so  our  in- 
debtedness to  our  fellow-men,  whether  at  home  or  abroad,  comes 
not  from  what  they  have  done  for  us,  but  from  what  Christ  has 
done  for  both  us  and  them.  It  is  thus  a debt  due  to  the  Master 
himself. 

What  now  are  the  advantages  of  regarding  our  participation 
in  the  causes  of  Christian  benevolence  as  a debt  rather  than  a 
gift  ? 

(a.)  The  feeling  of  responsibility  will  be  increased.  Every 
right-minded  man  regards  his  debts  as  binding.  They  are  kept 
in  mind,  and  provision  is  made  for  their  payment.  If,  through 
misfortune,  he  cannot  pay  when  his  debt  matures,  he  will  attend 
to  it  at  the  earliest  possible  day.  With  giving,  the  case  is  often 
very  different.  If  not  convenient  to  give  at  the  time,  it  is  easy 
to  dismiss  the  subject  from  the  miud.  If  it  is  a church  collec- 
tion, how  few  of  those  who  happen  to  be  absent  go,  subsequently, 
and  make  the  contribution  ? There  may  be  no  purpose  to  neg- 
lect a duty,  but  the  matter  is  forgotten.  Had  the  person  been 
present,  he  would  have  given  ; being  absent,  that  contribution  is 
lost.  The  idea  of  indebtedness  would  make  contributions  more 


SERMON. 


I I 

systematic  and  uniform,  as  they  would  be  brought  into  the  cir- 
cle of  business  transactions.  Our  great  societies  need  to  have 
a surer  revenue.  At  present,  their  knowledge  of  the  amount 
they  will  receive  in  a year  is  based  too  much  upon  the  doctrine 
of  chances.  There  are,  indeed,  some  church  members  — in  the 
aggregate,  many  — who  make  their  gifts  a matter  of  principle. 
Having  a proximate  knowledge  of  their  income,  they  decide  what 
part  shall  be  devoted  to  benevolence  in  the  regular  channels, 
with  perhaps  a reserve  for  extraordinary  calls.  The  portions 
thus  set  apart  are  put  on  the  footing  of  other  claims  on  the 
purse  ; they  will  not  be  contingent  on  presence  at  church  on  cer- 
tain days  ; there  is  a moral  certainty  that  they  will  reach  the 
treasuries  for  which  they  are  destined  ; they  are  regarded  as 
virtual  debts.  What  is  needed  is  that  these  examples  should 
be  followed  by  all  Christian  men  and  women  ; that  there  should 
be  a practical  recognition  of  personal  indebtedness  in  the  mat- 
ter of  benevolent  Christian  work. 

(b.)  The  idea  of  indebtedness  would  cause  contributions  to 
be  made  more  intelligently.  We  do  not  pay  bills  presented  to 
us  without  ascertaining  them  to  be  correct.  We  do  not  settle 
accounts  that  have  been  settled  before.  We  do  not  take  up  a 
note  without  satisfying  ourselves  that  the  person  claiming  pay- 
ment is  the  real  owner  of  the  paper.  But  gifts  are  not  usually 
made  with  this  careful  examination.  Not  unfrequently  they  are 
carelessly  and  thoughtlessly  made,  especially  when  the  object  is 
new.  Sometimes  one  gives  to  get  rid  of  the  applicant ; or,  it  may 
be,  because  he  thinks  that  giving  in  itself  is  meritorious,  with- 
out regard  to  the  object.  But  there  is  no  merit  in  mere  giving, 
and  to  give  to  an  unworthy  object  may  be  as  wrong  as  to  refuse 1 
to  give  to  one  that  is  worthy.  It  would  be  a sad  perversion  of 
Scripture  for  one  to  set  fire  to  his  house,  or  throw  himself  into 
the  sea,  thinking  to  apply  to  himself  the  words  of  Christ,  “ Who- 
soever shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake,  the  same  shall  save  it.” 

And  this  will  apply  not  only  to  gifts  made  during  the  life  of 
the  giver,  but  to  property  left  at  death  to  heirs,  or  bequeathed 
for  objects  of  benevolence.  Qur  debts  often  run  into  the  dis- 
tant future.  If  a man  needs  for  his  business  more  capital  than 
he  can  control,  he  will  not  depend  upon  banks  which  make  only 
short  loans,  but  will  borrow  of  one  who  wishes  to  invest  for  a 
series  of  years.  But  the  debtor  must  provide  for  the  interest, 
and  for  the  principal  when  it  shall  become  due.  Should  not 


SERMON 


I 2 

every  Christian  owner  of  property  regard  himself  as  virtually  a 
debtor  of  this  kind  ? As  having  made  loans  which  are  to  be 
repaid  partly  during  his  life,  and  partly  at  death  ? The  former 
he  can  attend  to  in  person,  but  the  others  should  be  carefully 
and  wisely  provided  for,  and  not  left  to  chance.  There  are 
cases,  doubtless,  *in  which  the  distribution  of  the  estate  of  a 
Christian  man  or  woman  may  be  left  to  the  law  applicable  to  in- 
testates, but  the  cases  are  not  numerous.  Most  persons  should 
themselves  make  provision  for  this  distribution.  This  is  not  the 
least  of  the  great  responsibilities  resting  upon  the  owners  of 
property,  and  none  but  the  weightiest  reasons  should  be  allowed 
to  prevent  its  full  and  timely  performance.  How  often  for  lack 
of  this,  has  an  inadequate  support  been  left  to  the  one  for  whom 
provision  should  first  of  all  have  been  made,  and  property  gone 
to  remote  heirs,  devoid  alike  of  claim  and  expectation.  And 
even  when  there  are  direct  heirs,  it  is  often  well  for  them,  as  for 
the  cause  of  human  progress,  that  some  part  of  the  estate 
should  go  for  benevolent  purposes. 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  remarked,  that  occasionally  the 
subject  of  benevolent  bequests  is  referred  to  in  the  pulpit,  and 
in  the  religious  journals,  in  a manner  which  is  at  least  ill-ad- 
vised, and  which  probably  deters  many  sensitive  persons  from 
making  such  bequests. 

The  language  alluded  to  implies  that  those  bequeathing  prop- 
erty selfishly  keep  what  they  have  as  long  as  they  can  ; that 
they  hold  on  to  it  with  a grasp  which  nothing  but  death  can  re- 
lax. In  general,  nothing  can  be  more  unfounded.  Most  lega- 
cies come  from  those  who  had  already  learned  the  luxury  of 
doing  good  with  money.  Some  need  their  capital  for  their  sup- 
port ; it  is  better  that  their  annual  gifts  from  income  should  be 
moderate,  leaving  their  capital  itself  undiminished,  to  be  ulti- 
mately appropriated  to  some  good  purpose.  Most  of  those  who 
give  liberally  during  life  have  the  ability,  and  the  desire,  to  make 
still  farther  appropriations  at  their  death.  It  is  not  wise  to  place 
obstacles  in  their  way.  Some  objects,  from  their  peculiar  na- 
ture, cannot  well  be  brought  within  the  sphere  of  regular  contri- 
butions, and  therefore  are  more  dependent  upon  gifts  by  be- 
quest. A venerable  man,  whose  benefactions  in  his  life  have 
been  so  large  in  proportion  to  his  ability  as  to  place  him  in  the 
very  first  rank  of  American  donors,  once  said  that  institutions 
of  learning  must  depend  largely  on  legacies  for  their  endow- 
ment. 


SERMON. 


13 


(c.)  The  idea  of  indebtedness  would  make  contributions  less 
dependent  on  factitious  circumstances,  as  the  absence  of  debt,  or 
the  fact  of  a surplus.  Giving  is  often  made  to  depend  on  a 
real  or  supposed  surplus  ; but  debts  must  be  canceled  whether 
there  is  a surplus  or  not.  If  a man  finds  himself  no  richer  at 
the  end  of  the  year  than  at  the  beginning,  he  may  easily  per- 
suade himself  that  it  is  not  his  duty  to  give  ; but  this  is  no 
reason  for  disregarding  indebtedness.  Sometimes  one  says,  he 
cannot  give  because  he  is  in  debt.  This  may  be  a reason  for 
not  giving  very  largely,  but  it  is  rarely  sufficient  for  doing  noth- 
ing. So  long  as  one  has  the  necessaries,  and  more  or  less  of 
the  comforts  of  life,  his  obligations  to  others  should  be  ac- 
knowledged. But  in  many  cases  the  debt  which  is  pleaded  in 
apology,  is  simply  for  profit,  and  implies  no  diminution  of  re- 
sources. The  farmer  has  added  to  his  farm,  the  merchant  or 
mechanic  has  enlarged  his  place  of  business,  the  capitalist  has 
borrowed  money  to  invest  in  a new  enterprise  that  promises  a 
large  return.  Has  the  net  property  been  diminished  ? Was 
not  the  debt  incurred  for  the  very  purpose  of  making  more 
money  ? Will  the  new  debt  invalidate  any  prior  debt  ? 

(d.)  Contributions  viewed  in  the  light  of  indebtedness,  will  be 
brought  more  upon  the  footing  of  expenses.  Gifts,  in  charity, 
are  usually  postponed  till  expenses  have  been  provided  for.  But 
expenses  cannot  take  precedence  of  debts.  A man  does  not 
refuse  to  pay  his  ordinary  debts  on  the  ground  that  it  costs  him 
so  much  to  live.  The  more  he  expends,  the  more  able  we  may 
suppose  him  to  be  to  meet  his  liabilities.  And  the  more  a man 
can  afford  in  his  personal  or  family  expenditures,  the  more,  we 
say,  he  can  afford  for  doing  good.  If  there  is  any  reality  in  the 
Christian  religion,  it  involves  obligation  on  the  part  of  him  who 
professes  it.  And  this  obligation  is  in  proportion  to  his  ability. 
The  more  we  can  do  for  ourselves,  the  more  we  can  do  for 
others.  If  a man  expends  for  himself  and  his  family  five  times 
the  amount  he  thought  necessary  a few  years  ago,  should  not 
his  outlay  for  Christ  increase  in  at  least  as  large  a ratio  ? Sup- 
pose a man  has  been  giving  a hundred  dollars  a year  to  the 
support  of  his  pastor,  but  this  year  he  has  expended  that  sum  in 
travelling  ; shall  he  make  this  a reason  for  giving  nothing  ? 

As  our  personal  and  family  expenses  should  furnish  no  excuse 
for  not  supporting  the  gospel  at  home,  neither  should  what  we 
do  for  home  objects  prevent  our  doing  for  objects  abroad.  What 


14 


SERMON. 


the  ratio  between  these  two  should  be,  in  self-supporting  churches, 
it  may  be  difficult  to  say ; but  in  many  churches,  perhaps  in  the 
majority,  the  latter  should  at  least  equal  the  former.  The 
wealthier  churches  could,  of  course,  do  much  more  ; for  there 
is  a limit  to  legitimate  home  expenditures,  while  there  is,  prac- 
tically, no  limit  to  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  world.  As  in  a 
family,  so  in  a church,  there  may  be  luxuries,  as  well  as  com- 
forts and  necessaries,  and  we  cannot  be  too  careful  in  regard 
to  them.  Whatever  may  be  true  as  to  costly,  luxurious  church 
edifices,  and  the  debts  they  may  cause,  it  is  clear  that  they  ought 
not  to  diminish,  to  the  extent  of  a single  dollar,  the  sums  that 
would  otherwise  go  to  the  cause  of  outside  benevolence. 

(<?.)  There  is  no  misconception  which  stands  more  in  the  way 
of  benevolent  work  than  this  ; that  giving  ought  to  be  done  by 
the  rich,  and  the  poor  should  be  exempt.  Not  that  this  is  often 
stated  in  terms,  but  multitudes  are  influenced  by  it,  perhaps  un- 
consciously. Hence  the  feebler  churches  often  give  nothing 
except  for  home  purposes,  and  multitudes  of  members  in  all  our 
churches,  leave  the  support  of  benevolent  objects  to  those  whom 
they  think  more  able.  Many  a minister  will  make  no  effort  to 
secure  a collection  from  his  people  because  of  their  scanty 
means.  He  has  an  indefinite  impression  that  it  would  be  hardly 
right  to  ask  them  to  give.  Yet  he  himself  will  give  beyond  his 
means  for  a local  object,  and  the  feebler  churches  often  show  as- 
tonishing energy  in  the  erection  of  their  church  edifices.  The 
moment  we  look  at  contributions  as  a species  of  indebtedness, 
this  misconception  vanishes.  Does  the  man  of  small  means  ex- 
pect his  debts  to  be  paid  by  his  richer  neighbor  ? Or  does  any 
one  expect  that  his  creditor  will  release  him  because  he  is  not 
so  rich  as  some  one  else  ? Because  a man  cannot  do  as  much 
for  his  children  as  some  other  parents,  shall  he  therefore  do 
nothing  ? Because  my  neighbor  has  more  property  on  the  as- 
sessor’s list  than  I have,  and  so  has  a larger  tax  to  pay,  shall  I 
petition  the  board  of  equalization  to  make  him  pay  my  tax  also  ? 
A small  debt  is  as  real  a debt  as  a large  one.  An  obligation 
does  not  cease  to  be  one  because  there  are  others  of  greater 
magnitude.  If  God  has  blessed  one  church  with  more  wealth 
than  another,  its  obligations  are  indeed  greater  in  proportion, 
but  it  is  not  bound  to  do  its  own  work  and  that  of  the  other 
also.  If  it  comes  not  up  to  the  measure  of  its  own  duty,  let  it 
look  to  it  ; but  any  increase  on  its  part  will  not  diminish  the 


SERMON. 


15 


obligation  on  the  sister  church.  If  my  fellow  church  member 
can  give  five  times  what  I can  for  the  missionary  work,  is  that  a 
reason  why  I should  give  nothing,  and  he  should  add  twenty 
per  cent,  to  his  gift? 

I repeat  that  this  impression,  that  contributions  for  the  causes 
of  Christian  benevolence  should  be  made  exclusively  or  spe- 
cially by  the  richer  members  or  the  richer  churches,  seems  to 
me  to  be  a most  formidable  obstacle  to  effort.  I do  not  believe 
there  is  a Congregational  church  in  the  land  that  ought  not  to 
make  an  annual  contribution  to  this  Board  for  the  support  of 
missions.  I do  not  believe  there  is  one  church  member  in  a 
hundred  who  cannot  do  something  for  each  of  the  great  causes. 
What  examples  have  been  set  us  by  the  churches  composed  of 
heathen  converts  ! With  these  examples  before  us,  who  in  this 
land  of  abundance  will  say  that  he  can  do  nothing,  absolutely 
nothing,  for  Christ  ? 

(/.)  The  idea  of  indebtedness  would  make  ownership  less 
prominent.  As  already  said,  in  paying  a debt  we  part  with  that 
which  was  only  nominally  ours.^  Our  relation  to  it  was  that  of 
trustee.  But  in  making  a gift  we  part  with  what  belonged  to 
us.  We  look  upon  ourselves  as  having  the  right  to  dispose  of 
it.  However  it  may  be  in  ordinary  business,  it  is  not  well  in 
matters  of  benevolence  to  make  our  ownership  prominent.  The 
more  distinctly  we  keep  before  the  mind  our  relation  to  our 
property  as  owners,  the  more  difficult  will  it  be  to  relinquish 
that  property.  On  the  other  hand  the  more  our  ownership  is 
kept  in  the  background,  that  is,  the  more  our  obligations  to 
others  wear  the  appearance  of  a debt,  the  more  ready  and  cheer- 
ful will  be  our  response  to  worthy  calls. 

Suppose  the  trial  were  made  to  provide  for  the  expenses  of 
the  government  by  voluntary  offerings  instead  of  taxation,  as 
now.  Would  there  not  be  a struggle  in  many  a breast,  even 
should  there  be  no  absolute  withholding  ? Yet  it  is  clear  that 
the  proportions  due  would  be  unchanged.  Is  not  the  relation  of 
the  Christian  to  the  kingdom  of  Christ  analogous  to  that  of  the 
citizen  to  the  State  under  which  he  lives  ? The  State  expends 
money  for  the  good  of  the  people,  and  each  citizen  must  furnish 
his  proportion.  The  kingdom  of  Christ  is  to  be  carried  forward 
through  human  instrumentality,  and  all  are  expected  to  partici- 
pate in  the  work.  But  as  this  kingdom  is  spiritual,  and  the 
spiritual  growth  of  all  its  subjects  is  an  end  always  in  view,  the 


SERMON. 


16 

element  of  coercion,  essential  in  civil  government,  has  no  place  ; 
but  every  one  is  left  to  recognize  and  apportion  for  himself  the 
debt  due  from  him  to  the  sovereign.  It  is,  however,  no  less  a 
debt  than  if  the  failure  to  discharge  it  were  followed  by  conse- 
quences as  summary  as  in  human  governments. 

It  is  often  said  that  no  giving  comes  up  to  the  proper  standard 
that  is  not  made  at  a sacrifice  ; that  we  must  give  till  we  feel  it. 
But  this  implies  the  consciousness  of  ownership  ; the  sacrifice 
consists  in  parting  with  what  was  ours.  There  is  no  feeling  of 
sacrifice  in  paying  a debt.  We  rejoice  when  that  is  done  ; re- 
joice because  our  obligation  has  been  discharged,  and  because 
the  creditor  is  put  in  possession  of  what  belonged  to  him.  To 
test  benevolent  contributions  by  the  feeling,  or  sacrifice,  with 
which  they  are  made  is  unjust  to  the  majority  who  contribute, 
since  they  take  pleasure  in  what  they  do  instead  of  regarding  it 
as  a sacrifice.  Does  not  our  talk  of  sacrifice  as  the  test  of  gen- 
uine benevolence  look  to  a religion  of  works  ? Does  it  not  savor 
of  asceticism,  of  hair-cloth  and  stone  floors  ? Those  who  give 
from  their  poverty,  confining  themselves,  perhaps,  to  the  barest 
necessaries  of  life  in  order  to  do  it,  give  as  cheerfully  and  joy- 
fully as  others  from  their  abundance.  There  are  those,  doubt- 
less, who  feel  their  contributions,  — feel  them  too  much  ; so 
much,  indeed,  that  they  are  generally  deterred  from  making 
them.  Their  consciousness  that  their  property  is  their  own  is 
so  vivid  that  it  is  with  the  utmost  reluctance  they  can  be  in- 
duced to  part  with  it. 

Others  are  kept  from  doing  good  by  the  same  consciousness 
of  ownership,  though  in  a different  way.  It  is  no  sacrifice  to 
them  to  part  with  a portion  of  what  they  have  ; they  care  not 
to  hoard  for  the  sake  of  hoarding  ; but  looking  upon  their  prop- 
erty as  their  own,  they  consult  only  themselves  in  disposing  of 
it.  While  expending  freely  for  themselves  and  their  families, 
their  property  no  more  finds  its  way  into  the  coffers  of  the 
Lord  than  that  which  others  hoard.  This  class  is  relatively 
large.  Much  is  said  about  the  haste  of  our  people  to  be  rich. 
It  is  thought  to  be  a national  trait.  And  in  the  judgment  of 
some  it  is  a crying  sin.  But  our  condemnation  must  not  be  too 
sweeping.  If  the  methods  are  entirely  honest  and  legitimate, 
the  rapidity  of  accumulation  is  not  to  be  censured.  Our  people 
are  not  penurious.  If  anxious  to  get,  they  are  not  anxious  to 
keep.  They  spend  freely  — too  freely.  No  other  people  ex- 


SERMON. 


17 


pend  so  large  a portion  of  their  earnings.  In  the  practice  of  a 
wise  economy,  we  are  sadly  deficient  as  a people.  If  some,  in 
their  haste  to  be  rich,  seek  to  acquire  by  illegitimate  means, 
many  more  are  kept  in  comparative  poverty  by  their  ignorance, 
or  neglect,  of  legitimate  saving.  American  Christians  could 
certainly  do  more  than  they  do  for  benevolent  ends  with  the 
means  they  have ; but  may  we  not  go  further  and  say  that  their 
means  should  be  larger  than  they  are  ? If  they  come  short  in 
benevolence,  do  they  not  come  short  also  in  the  ability  to  be  be- 
nevolent ? The  true  principles  of  getting  and  using  property 
are  too  often  reversed.  In  getting,  the  nature  of  property,  and 
our  ownership,  should  be  kept  distinctly  in  view  ; in  using  for 
Christ  and  his  cause  the  property  we  may  have  acquired,  that 
ownership  should  be  kept  in  the  background.  In  the  proper 
relations  of  business,  the  lines  of  ownership  should  be  well- 
defined  ; the  difference  between  mine  and  thine  be  as  distinct 
as  possible.  But  in  looking  at  the  wants  of  the  world,  remem- 
bering our  relations  to  Christ,  ownership  should  grow  dim.  We 
are  not  then  to  be  saying,  to  ourselves  or  to  others,  this  is  mine, 
and  shall  I not  do  what  I will  with  mine  own  ? Looking  at  our 
fellow-men  in  the  business  relations  of  life,  it  is  ours,  and  we 
should  take  a wise  care  of  it,  and  increase  it  in  all  proper  ways  ; 
looking  at  the  world  as  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  upon  our 
fellow-men,  whether  near  to  us  or  more  remote,  as  those  who 
are  to  be  brought  into  that  kingdom,  the  property  in  a measure 
ceases  to  be  ours  ; we  hold  it  in  trust  for  others  ; we  are  debt- 
ors, as  Paul  was. 

I have  thus  presented  the  idea  of  indebtedness  as  connected 
with  what  we  do  for  the  spiritual  good  of  others  ; and  have 
pointed  out  some  of  the  advantages  of  looking  upon  ourselves 
as,  to  this  extent,  debtors,  rather  than  the  dispensers  of  charity. 
Among  these  advantages  have  been  mentioned,  an  increase  of 
the  feeling  of  responsibility  ; making  contributions  more  intelli- 
gently ; making  them  less  dependent  on  factitious  circum- 
stances, as  a pecuniary  surplus,  or  the  absence  of  debt ; placing 
contributions  on  the  footing  of  expenses  ; a greater  readiness  to 
do  what  belongs  to  us,  instead  of  devolving  the  whole  work  on 
others  who  are  more  able  ; and  making  our  ownership  less 
prominent. 

I fear  that  this  view  may  be  thought  by  some  to  take  our  co- 


i8 


SERMON 


operation  in  Christian  work  for  a lost  world  out  of  the  warm, 
light  atmosphere  of  love,  and  transfer  it  to  the  cold  region  of 
duty.  God  forbid  that  I should  say  aught  to  check  the  fervor 
of  Christian  love.  Love  of  Christ  must  ever  be  the  animating 
principle  in  all  his  true  followers.  But  duty  and  love  are  not 
mutually  repellant ; the  presence  of  one  does  not  betoken  the 
absence  of  the  other.  It  is  duty  itself  that  feeds  the  flame  of 
love.  Without  duty  love  fluctuates,  becomes  a mere  sentiment, 
grows  cold,  dies.  Wherever  we  find  love  warm  and  steady,  we 
may  be  sure  that  duty  is  awake  and  watchful.  The  idea  of  in- 
debtedness does  indeed  grow  directly  out  of  that  of  duty,  and 
therefore  it  is  that  as  this  idea  becomes  prevalent,  the  interest 
in  this  great  work  of  Missions  will  increase  in  strength  and 
steadiness.  The  most  constant  and  generous  contributors  are 
those  who  regard  themselves  as  debtors.  But  love  is  not  there- 
fore absent  from  their  hearts.  It  exists  there,  but  not  as  a mere 
sentiment,  an  evanescent  flame.  It  is  an  active,  glowing,  life- 
giving  principle. 

The  true  mother  is  not  the  one  who  lavishes  upon  her  chil- 
dren all  words  of  endearment,  but  makes  no  provision  for  their 
wants,  either  of  body  or  of  spirit,  but  she  whose  life  is  instinct 
with  the  acts  of  love  ? An  expression  of  pity  for  the  poor 
heathen  is  something,  a word  of  sympathy  with  the  missionary 
who  leaves  home  and  friends  is  pleasant ; but  if  this  is  all,  we 
are  reminded  of  those  who  said  to  those  in  want,  “ Depart  in 
peace,  be  ye  warmed  and  filled,”  but  did  nothing.  Deeds  are 
the  test  of  love.  “ If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments.” 
When  the  conversion  of  the  world  is  concerned,  genuine  pity 
and  sympathy  will  never  be  satisfied  with  a kind  word  or  a fall- 
ing tear. 

Faith  without  works  — a profession  of  our  faith  in  Christ,  a 
declaration  of  our  love  to  him,  with  no  correspondent  life  — is 
dead.  We  are  not  justified  by  works,  but  being  justified,  our 
love  must  go  forth  into  act.  Piety  has  not  its  roots  in  works, 
but  works  spring  from  it,  as  golden  fruit  from  the  tree.  What 
richer  fruit  can  be  borne  than  in  labors  in  the  great  cause  for 
which  the  Master  laid  down  his  own  life  ! And  how  abundant 
will  that  fruit  be,  when  every  Christian  man  and  woman  can  ap- 
propriate the  words  of  Paul,  and  say  with  all  sincerity,  “ / am 
debtor  both  to  the  Greeks  and  to  the  Barbarians  ; both  to  the 
wise  and  to  the  unwise.” 


